This is in fact a relatively recent and rather novel view. There’s no support at all for the idea that the founders thought they’d ruled out criminal prosecution of a sitting President. The argument for the view is a consequentialist one, ie if a President could be prosecuted these bad things might arise.
NBC is going to drive me crazy
Really wish Kornacki said WHERE the provisionals are located. If 40k+ are in Philly, then this seems like a moot point.
There’s still everyone around him who could squeal on financial fraud like the rest of their mates already in jail.
I’m all for pursuing everyone who broke the public records laws. That’s a bunch of them that did. Then use that as leverage.
magnet
5489
Even if the DoJ is unwilling to investigate a sitting president, nothing keeps it from investigating potential crimes committed when a former president was in office.
What about prosecution after he’s no longer President for emoluments-related crimes committed as President?
Menzo
5491
Biden should just appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Trump administration, give him/her a nice, big staff, no deadline, and as much money as it takes. Then sit back and wait for the results.
Thought this was already being done.
Menzo
5493
The emoluments clause is in the Constitution, but it is not a Federal law, or any law of any sort, that I can tell.
That means the remedy for a President violating it is impeachment. An ex-President is no longer guilty of violating the emoluments clause.
IANAL of course. This is just based on my Google-fu.
What seems clear from even a cursory analysis of the constitutional problem is that fidelity to the Emoluments Clause may ultimately depend upon the good faith of the president as a businessman. The Constitution places enormous trust in the occupant of the White House and, in doing so, expresses an aspiration that the trust will not be abused.
This seems like it could be an avenue of exploration:
The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, on the other hand, enumerates several elected positions in its definition of “employees” who may not accept any gift of more than minimal value without congressional approval. Such “employees” include the President and the Vice President, a Member of Congress, and the spouses and dependents of the same.
But even then violations are civil in nature, not criminal.
(h)
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States against any employee who knowingly solicits or accepts a gift from a foreign government not consented to by this section or who fails to deposit or report such gift as required by this section. The court in which such action is brought may assess a penalty against such employee in any amount not to exceed the retail value of the gift improperly solicited or received plus $5,000.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. But you know DJT would be screaming ‘TREASON!’ if the positions were reversed.
newbrof
5495
When reading the poll maps, I thought incumbent is the same as imbecile, but they are totally different (english is not my first language). Incumbent President here, incumbent there. I thought it was pretty harsh language.
It is already being done. It’s an absurd filing. They’re asking for double secret probation.
JoshL
5497
It’s an easy mistake to make. They are interchangeable most of the time.
Pinal County dumps in AZ… I believe this to be an underperformance by Trump
It’s right at his target percentage needed, but it is a rural county so arguably he’d want to get more out of it.
antlers
5500
I think it’s a little above the average he needs. Not sure how Trump-leaning that county is supposed to be, though.
I must have watched that Michael Rappaport video five times now. So cathartic.
For those who missed it upthread, strong language warning:
DraiAC
5504
59% was his target percentage, before the Maricopa votes earlier today that weren’t quite good for him. So he needs to be doing better than 59% now, but I haven’t seen the new target number.
